Standing Committee B

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Pensions Bill

Clause 240 - Consultations about regulations

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Chris Pond: Committee members will be aware of the popular Radio 4 programme ''Sorry I Haven't a Clue''. That is not my response to the questions asked before we adjourned, but on that programme, contestants are required to sing along to the soundtrack of a popular song. The song is then paused and the winner is the contestant who is still singing the right part of the song when the soundtrack is turned on again. My challenge today is whether I can remember the right point in the sentence at which our sitting adjourned. In that context, I shall say, ''This would be inappropriate''—let us see whether that matches with the Hansard report of this morning's proceedings.
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was concerned that not all groups would be consulted, including those with the most passing of interest in the matter. I was explaining that it might be inappropriate for consultation to take place, for example, with the employer when the matters that were being consulted on were of concern to the trustees. I was simply making the point that consultation should be with the appropriate individuals and groups. 
 Concern was also raised about the consultation time, which would usually last for 12 weeks, and whether it could be undertaken in a shorter time in certain circumstances, such as when urgent changes have to be made and it is necessary for the consultation process to take place urgently.

Nigel Waterson: I hope that the Under-Secretary and I are not misunderstanding each other, but my worry about subsection (2)(b) is that there would be no consultation, not that the process would be shortened. It states that subsection (1) would not apply
''where it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency consultation is inexpedient''.
 That suggests that consultation would not occur at all.

Chris Pond: As I explained, within the general principle that we wish to consult whenever possible, we hope that consultation will take place even in circumstances in which we cannot undertake the full 12 weeks. However, there will be circumstances in which action will have to be taken almost immediately and consultation is not possible. We must consider the full range of possibilities but within the general context
 that, whenever possible, consultation should take place.
 The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who sadly has not been able to join us, raised an important point about the six-month period during which consultation does not need to take place. That is a fairly standard provision, carried over from similar legislation. We trust that there has been sufficient scrutiny of such legislation and that further consultation would not be appropriate within the first six months of the Bill coming into effect.

Nigel Waterson: I have two points to make. First, the fact that such a provision appears elsewhere does not mean that it is not gobbledegook in that legislation, too. The consultation concerns the regulations, to be established in a statutory instrument, which we have not seen. Given some of the principles that have been painfully extracted and hammered out in Committee, we are talking about two different animals. Secondly, I still do not understand the reason behind the magic period of six months. I am not claiming any great credit, but I think I was the first to raise the matter, which also worried the hon. and learned Member for Redcar and the hon. Member for Northavon. I suspect that all three of us—well, if all three of us were here—would be puzzled by what the Under-Secretary has said so far. However, perhaps he has not reached the relevant part of his briefing notes.

Chris Pond: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I left him out of my comments. He described the provision as gobbledegook; in that case, it is also gobbledegook in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pensions Act 1995. I will leave that statement on the record without further comment.
 The principle is that, as the first sets of regulations come into force, following parliamentary debate on the policy during the Bill's passage through Parliament, the obligation to consult does not apply. That is the purpose of the six-month cut-off point. However, that does not prevent consultation from taking place and, where appropriate, it will take place. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 241and 242 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 - Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 90, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 6, at end insert— 
 ' In section 53 (supervision: former contracted-out schemes), after subsection (1B) insert— 
 ''(1C) But where a direction under subsection (1) conflicts with a freezing order made by the Regulatory Authority under section 20 of the Pensions Act 2004 in relation to the scheme then, during the period for which the freezing order has effect, the direction to the extent that it conflicts with the freezing order— 
 (a) is not binding as described in subsection (1), and 
 (b) is not enforceable as described in subsection (1B).'''.
 No. 91, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 6, at end insert— 
 ' In section 99 (trustees' duties after exercise of option)— 
 (a) in subsection (4) after ''circumstances,'' insert ''by direction'', and 
 (b) in subsection (4A) for ''in relation to applications for extensions under subsection (4)'' substitute ''requiring applications for extensions under subsection (4) to meet prescribed requirements''.'.
 No. 92, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 6, at end insert— 
 ' In section 101J (time for compliance with transfer notice)— 
 (a) in subsection (2) after ''circumstances,'' insert ''by direction'', and 
 (b) in subsection (6)(a) for ''in relation to applications for extensions under subsection (2)'' substitute ''requiring applications for extensions under subsection (2) to meet prescribed requirements''.'.
 No. 93, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 8, at end insert— 
 ' In section 168(4) (penalties for contravention of regulations) after ''the provision'' insert ''to be required by notice in writing''.'.—[Mr. Pond.]

Chris Pond: I beg to move amendment No. 571, in
schedule 11, page 229, line 8, at end insert— 
 ' In section 146 (functions of the Pensions Ombudsman)— 
 (a) for subsection (1)(f) substitute— 
 ''(f) any dispute, in relation to a time while section 22 of the Pensions Act 1995 (circumstances in which Regulator may appoint an independent trustee) applies in relation to an occupational pension scheme, between an independent trustee of the scheme appointed under section 23(1) of that Act and either— 
 (i) other trustees of the scheme, or 
 (ii) former trustees of the scheme who were not independent trustees appointed under section 23(1) of that Act, and'', and 
 (b) in subsection (8), in paragraph (a) of the definition of ''independent trustee'' for the words from ''section 23(1)(b)'' to the end substitute ''section 23(1) of the Pensions Act 1995 (appointment of independent trustee by the Regulatory Authority)''.'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 572 to 578. 
 Government new clause 38—Independent trustees.

Chris Pond: I want to take Committee members for a stroll down memory lane. When we discussed clause 31, we committed ourselves to tabling a new clause to deal with independent trustees. That new clause is now before us.
 New clause 38 amends sections 22 to 25 of the 1995 Act. It gives the regulator power to appoint an independent trustee if the employer is insolvent or if there is a pension protection fund assessment in relation to the scheme. The 1995 Act requires an insolvency practitioner or official receiver to ensure that an independent trustee is in place at all times. If there is none, they are required to appoint one. There is evidence to suggest that an independent trustee is not always appointed. Currently, the only way to resolve that situation is for a member of the scheme to apply to court to force the insolvency practitioner or official receiver to appoint an independent trustee. However, that does not happen often, mainly because of the potentially prohibitive personal costs to the 
 member. The new clause will help to ensure that an individual trustee is appointed where required by empowering the regulator, rather than the insolvency practitioner or official receiver, to appoint an independent trustee. 
 My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) expressed unease about the fees charged by independent trustees, especially when a scheme is in wind-up. By enabling the regulator to decide whether an independent trustee appointment is appropriate, rather than by requiring an insolvency practitioner or official receiver to appoint one in every case, we do away with unnecessarily costly appointments. The regulator will have the power to opt instead to appoint a trustee under section 7 of the 1995 Act, and that trustee could be a member or a lay trustee. 
 The regulator will also have the power to determine whether the employer, the scheme or both should meet the costs of any independent trustee that the regulator appoints. The new clause also allows the regulator to establish a register of independent trustees. It requires any independent trustee that the regulator appoints to come from that register. We will set out in regulations the minimum criteria for inclusion on the register, but I assure hon. Members that the measure will enable the regulator to monitor the fees charged by independent trustees. I know that that innovation will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the Committee. 
 A mixed bag of consequential amendments accompany the new clause; I offer my apologies for that, but they are all necessary technical and editing changes resulting from the amendments to section 22, and the replacement of sections 23 and 24, of the 1995 Act. The amendments further demonstrate our resolve to protect members in occupational pension schemes and their rights. The measures are supported by the insolvency practitioner and independent trustee groups. I hope that the new clause and the related amendments are accepted.

Nigel Waterson: We broadly welcome new clause 38, as do the professionals involved. There are circumstances in which the role of independent trustees is important, even in existing legislation. There is at least some anecdotal evidence of cases in which an independent trustee could have been of great assistance but has not been appointed because of the problems associated with doing that, not least of which is the legal costs involved in bringing the matter to court. It fits in logically with the scheme of the new legislation for the regulator to have that power.
 I was expecting a bit more on how the role of independent trustees will fit into the new architecture. On one level, one could argue that such trustees might be a less frequently used weapon in the armoury because of all the regulator's other powers. Will the independent trustees wither on the vine because there are so many other powers? To use a metaphor, it seems that a choice of clubs—some blunter than others—might be allowed to help to deal with a particular shot on the golf course. However, as I know absolutely nothing, and care even less, about golf, I shall abandon that analogy. I apologise profusely to any golfers in—well, the entire electorate, really. There was 
 a time when, to be a Tory MP, it was a requirement to play golf with a certain handicap, but I think that that has now been dropped.

Malcolm Wicks: You've still got handicaps.

Nigel Waterson: Tee hee.
 I understand that it makes a lot of sense for the regulator to have the power that we are discussing. It may have been the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) who said that the cost of the independent trustees can appear exorbitant—perhaps I should not say that, although we enjoy absolute privilege. If, in passing, the measures allow the regulator to keep an eye on fees, that is helpful and important. I gather that that is the policy intention behind the measures. 
 Will the Under-Secretary talk us through the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to charge particular parties? He was saying, and it seems clear from the new clause, that the scheme, the employer, or both could be charged. Perhaps he could say a little more about how that will operate. What would be the logic behind the decision to charge one or the other, or possibly both? If the third of those options were taken, how would the charge be apportioned? 
 Broadly, we support the provisions. For once, they seem to have been consulted on, and their terms seem to have been agreed with the practitioners, so it would be churlish for us to disagree with them.

Steve Webb: We certainly welcome new clause 38, particularly proposed new section 23(4), which says:
''Regulations must provide for the Authority''—
 I presume that that is the regulator— 
''to compile and maintain a register of persons who satisfy the prescribed conditions for registration.''
 I want to probe that a little further. A few weeks ago, we did not even know that the provision was coming; now it is to be in the Bill. That is welcome, but those who will be subject to it might reasonably want to know a bit more about what is in the Government's mind. 
 The new clause states that the regulator will do that. Will the regulator be given a free hand or will the Government offer guidance on what they consider to be excessive charge levels? How might such things be measured? Would there be a maximum percentage of the fund that could go in charges, or a maximum length of time in which to wind up? Could somebody approved for the list who puts out a new wind-up price list, which has increased that month so that it goes beyond the price cap, get knocked off the list? 
 How is this all going to work? The proposal is a good thing in principle, but it is at the other end of the scale from most of the Bill. It is almost too succinct to give us much of a clue about how it will operate. Who will decide the issue? The new clause states that it will be the regulator. Do the Government have any views? Will they express their views, or will the regulator 
 simply get on with it? Is it likely to be a tough hurdle to get across? There is a widespread feeling that independent trustees have ripped off a lot of workers who were already not going to get much pension—in fact nothing at all, what with £100 charges for a phone call and all that business. 
 I urge the Government to press the regulator to make this a tough, tight price cap. It would be helpful to know how far the Government are thinking of going.

Chris Pond: I welcome what I take to be support for the provisions from both Opposition spokespeople. To take the last points raised first, the issue of the charges has been raised by many Committee members in the past. In fact, when funds are already in some difficulty, the charges may make the difficulties worse. We are taking action to allow the regulator to check independent trustees' fees. In more straightforward cases, the regulator can appoint a trustee under section 7 of the 1995 Act in order to try to keep control of the costs. As I said in opening the debate, that person may be not a professional trustee but a lay member.
 I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to have a scale of charges, because the circumstances, the amount of work involved and the size of the fund would differ. It is probably appropriate that the regulator should have the flexibility to decide the appropriate fee. However, what would be different is that there would be some real control over the fee levels. If there are people who are considered to have consistently ''overcharged'', it is unlikely that they would find themselves on the register in the first place. There are a number of safeguards available.

Nigel Waterson: Does the Under-Secretary agree that the issue is not so much about the tariff—that reminds me of that old taxi tariff that hangs by the Members' Entrance—but about the time that a trustee puts in, and, in the case of a professional trustee, how many staff are involved in dealing with a problem? It is more the overall charge, rather than the hourly, daily or weekly charge, that makes the difference.

Chris Pond: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well; the charge has to be proportionate and take account of the amount of work and the circumstances involved, as I said.
 I think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne broadly supports our proposals. I think that he accepts that we have to make the changes, because in many cases things are not working properly: often, when an independent trustee should be appointed, no one is. In other cases, the appointments of independent trustees are inappropriate and impose on a fund charges disproportionate to the need.

Nigel Waterson: The Under-Secretary is showing signs of reaching his peroration, so I will just remind him of my point about the basis of charging the employer or the scheme, or both.

Chris Pond: I apologise. As the hon. Gentleman may remember, we discussed that in our earlier debates. The employer could still be in a financially buoyant position, and it would then be appropriate that the
 charges should fall there. Alternatively, the employer might be effectively insolvent, but the scheme could still have funds available. The regulator will have to judge where the charges ought to fall, in the circumstances in which the scheme finds itself. That is not something that we can put in the Bill, but we must give it as a power to the regulator.

Nigel Waterson: Just to be clear, is this a question of the resources of the payer rather than of any other considerations, such as who might be more to blame for the mess that they are all in?

Chris Pond: The regulator would have to take account of those factors as well. Perhaps I should have included that in the list of circumstances that would be considered. Certainly that would be a factor, in addition to the ability to pay.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 572, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 18, at end insert— 
 ' In section 178 (power to make regulations as to the persons to be regarded as trustees or managers of schemes for certain purposes), in paragraph (b) for ''to 26C'' substitute ''to 26''.'.—[Mr. Pond.]

Chris Pond: I beg to move amendment No. 542, in
schedule 11, page 229, line 18, at end insert— 
 ' In section 192(2) (provisions extending to Northern Ireland)— 
 (a) for ''section 145 (except subsections (4)'' substitute ''section 145 (except subsections (4A) to (4C)'', and 
 (b) at the appropriate place insert— 
 ''section 145A,''.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 546 to 548 and 540. 
 Government new clause 23—The Pensions Ombudsman and Deputy Pensions Ombudsmen. 
 Government new clause 24—Jurisdiction. 
 Government new clause 25—Investigations.

Chris Pond: The amendments and new clauses all relate to the pensions ombudsman. For convenience I will discuss them as a group, although for clarity I will deal with them in order.
 New clause 23 amends existing legislation about the pensions ombudsman's tenure. It provides that he can be removed from office only on the grounds set out in his terms of appointment. It increases his independence by enhancing his security of tenure and obviates any suggestion that the Secretary of State can remove him from office for no good reason. Hon. Members will remember that in our earlier deliberations on the PPF ombudsman there was a concern that at some future stage there might be what I think was described as a maverick Secretary of State, who might act unreasonably in removing the ombudsman. We expect that to occur only should there be a change of Government—some time in the next century—but it is important that we put the safeguard in the Bill in any case. The amendment is in line with the terms of office of the pensions regulator 
 tribunal, which have been considered by the Committee. 
 New clause 23 also extends existing provisions to allow for the creation of one or more posts of deputy pensions ombudsman. The spotlight on pensions over the past few years has inevitably led to a significant increase in cases coming to the ombudsman. Therefore, proper assistance and support in his work is particularly important now. The new clause will permit one or more deputies to be appointed to carry out all the duties of the pensions ombudsman either in his absence in the event of a vacancy or from time to time to tackle any outstanding casework. The deputy will be able to make determinations in all the cases that currently fall within the pensions ombudsman's jurisdiction. 
 Subsections (4) and (5) of the new clause also contain the normal disqualification provisions for political appointments in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. That is another disappointment for the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who will not be able to boast at the golf club of being deputy pensions ombudsman, any more than he could about being deputy PPF ombudsman—and since we have just learned that he does not play golf, that would be an additional handicap. 
 New clause 24 will allow one-off acts of administration to be brought within the pensions ombudsman's jurisdiction. I should explain that that is being introduced because in the case of Britannic v. Pensions Ombudsman, the Court of Appeal distinguished between carrying out an act of administration in connection with a pension scheme and being concerned with its administration. The Court of Appeal held that a person who carried out one or more acts of administration in connection with a pension scheme might fall outside the ombudsman's jurisdiction because they would not be a person responsible for the administration of that scheme. That is confusing and disempowering for anyone who has a complaint arising from an act of administration carried out, for example, by an insurance company at the request of the scheme administrators, and means that the only option for such persons is to seek redress in the courts. 
 The amendment enables regulations to specify that a person responsible for an act or acts of administration may be deemed to be responsible for the administration of a pension scheme for the purpose of the complaint being made or a dispute being referred to the pensions ombudsman about his or her actions or failure to act. It does not have retrospective effect, as that would be unfair on those who carry out acts of administration and whose actions cannot at present be complained about. If the clause had retrospective effect, those persons would be subject to investigations in relation to acts that occurred at a time when they assumed—and would have been entitled to assume—that they did not fall within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. 
 Amendments Nos. 546, 547 and 548 are simply a technical referral of the existing legislation enabling regulations to be made in respect of the ombudsman's 
 jurisdiction where third parties are concerned. Despite extensive consultation with the pensions industry over several years, a workable solution has not been found that would enable the pensions ombudsman to deal with those cases without unacceptable delays and costs to pension schemes, and possibly to scheme members themselves. It is therefore appropriate that section 54 should be repealed. In any cases where third parties' rights might be affected by a decision of the pensions ombudsman, it is open to the complainant to seek redress through the courts. I ask hon. Members to accept the amendment.

Nigel Waterson: I agree that the Government amendments are drafting amendments, technical in nature, and we have no problems with them. On new clause 24, I do not profess to understand the distinction drawn by the lords justices in the Britannic case, although, having once been tangentially involved in a case about a missing comma involving a ship charter party that went all the way to the House of Lords, I know that anything is possible. This is clearly something that exercises the ombudspeople's community; when ombudspeople meet—at the golf club or anywhere else—it is something that they often talk about. There are more and more of these people—so many, indeed, that they will soon be able to have their own club, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be given honorary membership. I cannot profess to second-guess the draftsman, but if the new clause does deal with the Britannic case, it is addressing a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
 In new clause 23 we are back with our new best friend, the deputy ombudsman—in this case, the deputy pensions ombudsman. I am slightly losing track, but the drift of Government policy, if that word does not give it too much of a sense of direction—

Malcolm Wicks: Ho, ho.

Nigel Waterson: Is attention to my lecture beginning to recede?
 As we debated on Tuesday, the drift of Government policy is to have, at least initially, the existing Act for ombudsmen to apply to the PPF ombudsman. The new clause underlines the concerns that I expressed the other day about the deputy PPF ombudsman being activated. I do not want to rerun that debate, but to refresh the Committee's memory we need to look at proposed new section 145A(4). The deputy pensions ombudsman could be activated only if there were vacancy, which makes sense, or if the ombudsman is unable to discharge his functions—perhaps he has gone mad or is ill—and, crucially, 
''at any other time, with the consent of the Secretary of State.''
 As I argued the other day, I cannot understand why if there is to be a deputy—which is a sensible idea if there is going to be an ombudsman in any context—they should be put behind a glass screen that says, ''To be broken when needed, but only by the Secretary of State.'' That is taking away from the ombudsman—whichever one I am talking about—the flexibility to be able to draw on the deputies. I use the plural because now they have begun to trickle out, there might be more than one, and we might be looking at a bunch of 
 them. The ombudsman should be able to draw on the deputies as needed to give flexibility to his role, particularly if he is now to have a dual role in dealing with the PPF stuff as well. Without laboriously returning to the previous arguments about the PPF, may I ask the Under-Secretary to say that he will rethink whether more flexibility can be built in for the ombudsman to bring to bear the energies and talents of the deputy?

Chris Pond: As we have heard throughout the Committee proceedings, my hon. Friend the Minister is happy and concerned to reflect on all the issues. He reflected a great deal before we tabled the new clauses and amendments, and I am sure that he will reflect again.
 Let me explain why the Secretary of State can determine other circumstances, or, in the wording of the Bill, why that can be done 
''with the consent of the Secretary of State.''
 It is important that we recognise that the deputy ombudsman will have the same powers as the pensions ombudsman himself or herself. It is also important that the deputy has the same independence and impartiality as the pensions ombudsman. Questions could be asked about his independence were he to carry out his duties only when asked to do so by the pensions ombudsman, which is why we have provided the flexibility of allowing the deputy to step in 
''with the consent of the Secretary of State.''
 It is a back-stop, which, to some extent, gives more parliamentary accountability to the whole process. 
 On the Britannic case and new clause 24, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an issue at stake which involves individual acts of administration that are, at the moment, outside the scope of a complaint that can be brought to the ombudsman. In those cases, members can only use the courts to pursue a complaint against individual acts of administration, whereas somebody who is responsible for the administration of a scheme as a whole comes within the remit of the ombudsman. As with the question about particular types of administration, such as the example that I gave in connection with insurance, we need to give people the opportunity to use the ombudsman process to pursue a complaint rather than require them to go through the expensive business of going through the courts. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 94, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 20, at end insert— 
 ' In section 4 (suspension orders), in subsections (3) and (5) for ''class'' substitute ''description''.'.
 No. 573, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 21, leave out from 'trustees)' to end of line 22 and insert '— 
 (a) in subsection (1) omit ''a trustee of such a scheme ceases to be a trustee'', and 
 (b) in subsection (2) for ''section 23(1)(b)'' in both places substitute ''section 23(1)''.'.
 No. 95, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 22, at end insert— 
 ' In section 9 (removal and appointment of trustees: property), after ''exercise'' insert ''by order''.'.
 No. 574, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 26, at end insert— 
 ' In section 22 (circumstances in which independent trustee provisions apply), in subsections (1) and (3) for ''to 26A'', in each place, substitute ''to 26''. 
 In section 25 (appointment and powers of independent trustees: further provisions)— 
 (a) in subsection (1) for ''section 23(1)(b)'' substitute ''section 23(1)'', 
 (b) in subsection (2)— 
 (i) after ''a scheme'' insert ''and there is an independent trustee of the scheme appointed under section 23(1)'', and 
 (ii) omit from ''but if'' to the end, 
 (c) in subsection (3) for '', no independent trustee of the scheme may'' substitute ''and there is an independent trustee of the scheme appointed under section 23(1), the independent trustee may not'', and 
 (d) in subsection (4)— 
 (i) for ''section 23(1)(b)'' substitute ''section 23(1)'', and 
 (ii) after ''person'' insert ''(within the meaning of section 23(3))''. 
 In section 26 (insolvency practitioner or official receiver to give information to trustees), in subsection (1) after ''a scheme'' insert ''by virtue of subsection (1) of that section''. 
 Sections 26A to 26C are hereby repealed.'.
 No. 96, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 28, at end insert— 
 ' In section 29 (persons disqualified for being trustees), in subsection (5) for ''class'' substitute ''description''.'.
 No. 97, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 29, after 'consequences)' insert '— 
 (a) in subsection (2), after ''exercise'' insert ''by order'', and 
 (b) '.
 No. 567, in 
schedule 11, page 229, line 32, leave out paragraph 14.
 No. 98, in 
schedule 11, page 230, line 41, at end insert— 
 ' In section 69(2) (power to make provision in relation to applications under that section)— 
 (a) for ''about the manner of dealing with'' substitute ''requiring'', and 
 (b) after ''this section'' insert ''to meet prescribed requirements''.'.
 No. 99, in 
schedule 11, page 230, line 41, at end insert— 
 ' In section 71A(4)(d) (power to make provision in relation to applications for the purposes of that section)— 
 (a) for ''before such time as may be prescribed'' substitute ''before an application is made for the purposes of this section'', and 
 (b) for ''an application for the purposes of this section'' substitute ''the application''.'.
 No. 575, in 
schedule 11, page 231, line 32, at end insert— 
 ' In section 118 (powers to modify Part 1 of the Pensions Act 1995)— 
 (a) in subsection (2) for ''to 26C'' substitute ''to 26'', and 
 (b) omit subsection (3).'.
 No. 100, in 
schedule 11, page 231, line 42, after '''Authority'',' insert— 
 '( ) in subsection (3) after ''may'' insert ''by direction'','.—[Mr. Pond.]

Chris Pond: I beg to move amendment No. 512, in
schedule 11, page 232, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert— 
 '39 (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (application of enactments relating to occupational trust schemes to certain stakeholder schemes) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In sub-paragraph (2), in paragraph (b)—'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 513.

Chris Pond: The amendments update the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 to ensure that trust-based personal stakeholder pension schemes are subject to the fraud compensation policies that we have discussed. Such schemes will also be subject to the provisions on gathering information set out in clauses 152 to 165. This is another example of the Government maintaining consistency of approach with the Pension Compensation Board's current coverage of pension schemes, although there have been no fraud compensation payments to stakeholder pension schemes to date.
 Without bringing those schemes under the PPF umbrella, they would not have the formal protection that they currently enjoy. Due to the unusual nature of the schemes, we propose to apply the clauses on fraud compensation and information gathering with modifications that will be prescribed by the Secretary of State. That will enable us to remove aspects of those clauses that do not apply in the case of stakeholder pension schemes because, for example, they have no employer. It will also enable us to introduce new requirements in the event of them being needed. 
 Trust-based stakeholder pension schemes are rare. There are currently five, all of which have fewer than 400 members. However, as they have received PCB protection, we want that to continue under the PPF. The appeal and review rights in relation to full compensation will apply to those schemes in the same way as they apply to occupational schemes.

Steve Webb: Are the trust-based stakeholder pension schemes the same as the individual pension accounts, which the Treasury launched but which never really took off?

Chris Pond: I am seeking inspiration on that; I think that it will take so long in coming that I had better write to the hon. Gentleman.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 568, in 
schedule 11, page 232, line 15, at end insert— 
 '( ) in sub-paragraph (ii) for ''31'' substitute ''30'','.
 No. 513, in 
schedule 11, page 232, line 20, at end insert— 
 '( ) After that paragraph insert ''; and 
 (c) Chapters 4 and 5 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (fraud compensation and information gathering).'' 
 ( ) After sub-paragraph (5) insert— 
 ''(6) Chapters 4 and 5 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (as applied by sub-paragraph (1)) shall have effect with such modifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations.''.'—[Mr. Pond.]
 Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 243 - Repeals and revocations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: The clause introduces schedule 12, which specifies the legislative provisions that the Bill will repeal in the case of Acts and revoke in the case of statutory instruments.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 243 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 - Repeals and revocations

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in
schedule 12, page 232, line 29, leave out '1' and insert '2'.
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne said that earlier in his career he took a comma all the way to the House of Lords. The purpose of the amendment is to leave out a '1' and insert a '2'. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 543, in
schedule 12, page 233, line 16, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'Section 111.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 544 and 545. 
 Government new clause 26—Voluntary contributions.

Malcolm Wicks: This is a great moment. New clause 26 removes the requirement on schemes to provide facilities for members to pay voluntary contributions. Amendment Nos. 543, 544 and 545 are consequential technical amendments to the list of repeals in schedule 12.
 Until April 2001, tax rules meant that an individual could not generally be a member of an occupational pension scheme and have a personal pension at the same time. Against that background, the Government introduced a rule in 1986 that occupational pension schemes must have a facility for members to make additional voluntary contributions to their occupational scheme. In 2001, individuals could contribute to an occupational pension scheme and a personal pension at the same time if their earnings were below £30,000. The forthcoming tax changes in the Finance Bill will remove that restriction. 
 In the light of that change, it is no longer necessary to require occupational pension schemes to offer AVC facilities to members. Anyone wanting to make additional pension savings will be able to do so in a personal or stakeholder pension of their choice. I am 
 sure that many occupational schemes will choose to continue their existing AVC arrangements as a matter of good practice, but with other options readily available it is no longer necessary to place a statutory requirement on every scheme to offer AVC facilities.

Steve Webb: So, the fact that the existing AVC arrangements were facilitated by the employer was, in a sense, neither here nor there. They had nothing to do with the occupational pension scheme and were just the employer helping the worker to do a bit more saving. Therefore, getting rid of the requirement to allow additional voluntary saving does not deprive the worker of a right. I want to be clear that the AVC does not give them any rights in the occupational pension scheme that we are now denying them by removing the obligation on employers to offer that facility. Is that correct?

Malcolm Wicks: In a regime in which someone could not have both a works pension and a personal pension, the Government thought it right to enable employees to increase their pension contribution through an AVC, separate from the main works pension, as it were. Now, slowly but surely, and very fundamentally in the Finance Bill, we are saying that people can have both. We do not think that we need to require the employer to offer that facility because other arrangements can be made, such as a stakeholder pension. We are removing a requirement of burden that is no longer necessary, given the current circumstance.

Steve Webb: That is a helpful reply. Why were people prohibited from having a separate pension on top of their occupational pension while it was perfectly acceptable for them to have an AVC that had nothing to do with the works pension and just happened to be administered by the employer? As I do not understand that, I cannot understand why we can get rid of the requirement. Does the Minister understand what I am trying to convey?

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the question clearly. My difficulty is that I do not understand the answer very clearly. On the one hand, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue make available generous provisions to encourage people to take out pensions, but on the other, they have always had concerns, and there have always been restrictions. The Finance Bill tries to adopt a more—pardon the expression—liberal approach to the issue, with the lifelong earnings limit and so on. There have always been those concerns.
 I imagine that the original restraints—they were not set up on my watch, if I may say so; the hon. Member for Eastbourne may want to explain the reasoning behind them—probably had something to do with those tax concerns. That may have been thought easier to police or monitor—I do not know. I am not lost in the sands of time; my guess is that it was something to do with the fiscal arrangements. 
 The new clause is a straightforward consequence of the Finance Bill and the culmination of a series of deregulatory steps to make pension provision progressively more flexible.

Nigel Waterson: Getting rid of section 111 of the 1993 Act is a necessary and sensible provision. We welcome it; it enables us to tick off yet another provision that people were surprised not to see in the Bill originally. Here it is, just in the nick of time.
 I am also grateful for the Minister's confirmation that it will still be possible for AVCs to continue on a purely voluntary basis, as before, if that is what people want. I have no tribal recollection of why the arrangements were made in the first place. I presume that it was something to do with tax, and that is why the Finance Bill is leading on the issue, and we have to follow it up in this Bill. That is eminently sensible, and it is one example in this Bill—it is difficult to think of any other—of making life easier, less complicated, more flexible and less bureaucratic. It may be a straw in the wind, but I do not think so; almost everything else that we are doing seems to have the opposite effect. 
 However, let me not be churlish; I welcome the new clause. I could tell from the way in which he was speaking that the Minister, by his standards anyway, was getting quite frisky at the prospect of the end of the Committee stage, and I do not want to ruin that mood.

Steve Webb: I hope that nobody will accuse me of being frisky at this juncture, but at the risk of depressing the Minister, I want to gnaw away a little further, because I am not yet sure that I understand—[Interruption.]—the groans from the Whips notwithstanding.
 We are clearly getting rid of a worker's right to make additional voluntary contributions through the employer. The Minister's argument is that they do not need that right anymore, because the tax rules have changed. However, there must have been some reason why the powers that be decided that although one could not have a company pension and a personal pension, one could have basically the same thing—a company pension and AVCs, which were entirely separate from the work pension—and that that was somehow okay. 
 Clearly, tax was the underlying reason; we do not want people getting vast amounts of tax relief. I suspect that the reason might have been administrative; if everything is all under one employer's roof, one can spot what people are up to, but if a person runs off and buys a personal pension somewhere else, one cannot be sure that they are not getting pots and pots of tax relief. However, I am still not clear that there was no advantage at all—an advantage that we may now be losing—from doing things through the employer. 
 I have to smile, because I want to record my appreciation of the Department and its officials, who prepared admirable briefing notes for us on almost all these new clauses. A little bird tells me that we had no briefing note on this one because it was self-explanatory. There may be places in which it is self explanatory, but not in my back yard, as it were. 
 I feel uncomfortable about nodding the provisions through; I still do not really feel that I understand them. The Minister has been honest enough to suggest 
 that although he understands 99 per cent. of them, there is just that little niche that he does not. I feel a little uneasy nodding through a new Act of Parliament when no one in the Room—with perhaps one exception—understands all of it. That worries me a bit.

Malcolm Wicks: I do not want to have a debate about the difference between fiscal and frisky; that would be dangerous, at my advanced age.
 I must say to the hon. Gentleman—I think honesty is always a good tactic to use against him—that I do not fully understand the fiscal history, stretching back a few decades, on this point; the provisions almost certainly have to do with tax arrangements. He may have put his finger on it when he said that, although we are talking about AVCs, if everything is under one employer's roof, it is probably administratively easier to monitor and police. That might be the situation. 
 I am more concerned to explain the future: I am very clear about that. As we had removed the restriction and enabled people to have both a personal pension scheme and an occupational pension scheme, it no longer seemed sensible to impose the obligation—some might call it a burden—on all employers. 
 In future there will be a regime—encouraged, of course, by the tax changes with the lifetime limit of £1.5 million—whereby those fortunate enough to be members of occupational pension schemes may be offered AVCs by their employers. I imagine that many employers who currently offer them will continue to do so, but the employee has the right to put money into a personal pension scheme. I am very clear about the future, even if I am not chapter-and-verse, footnote and subsection (1), (2) and (3) clear about the past 20 years.

Steve Webb: The Minister would put my mind at rest if he put on record an assurance that no worker will, through the new clause, lose a right that would have any value to them once the new Finance Bill is in force.

Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I can do that, because a greater range of opportunities will now be open to that worker. The provisions are about recognising the logic of having more choice. We—not only the regulator but the protection fund, in the case of final salary schemes—are imposing new obligations on schemes, but there does not have to be an obligation on employers to remove choice. The new clause is about deregulating, as, in a sense, we bring in new regulatory powers. It is part of that balance. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
 Amendment agreed to.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 569, in
schedule 12, page 233, line 18, at end insert— 
 'In section 131(b), the words ''payable at any earlier time or''.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government new clause 33—Increase in age at which short service benefit must be payable.

Malcolm Wicks: The amendment and the new clause amend certain provisions in sections 71 and 72 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 in respect of short service benefits. Section 71 of that Act provides that where a member of an occupational pension scheme has become a deferred member, but has at least two years' qualifying service in that scheme, or has transferred rights under a personal pension, his rights must be preserved as short service benefits.
 Section 71 of the 1993 Act provided that where a scheme's normal pension age is less than 60, short service benefits more commonly referred to as deferred pension are payable no later than age 60. Section 71 applies to a limited number of schemes in which retirement before the age of 60 is expected because of the nature of the work; schemes for firefighters and police officers are the obvious example. 
 We made the proposal because when a person leaves such employment before normal pension age—say, if someone was a firefighter or police officer for just a few years early on in their career—we believe that the link with the normal pension age and employment is broken, so there is no reason why that pension should need to be paid early. The purpose of the new clause is to amend section 71(3) of the prior Act to change the latest age from which a deferred pension is payable in schemes with an early normal pension age. The age is increased to 65, which is in line with the general public policy of extending working life and raising the public service pension age in respect of future service. The new clause also adds a new subsection to section 72 to reflect the amendment to section 71(3) in respect of normal pension age. I emphasise the word ''future,'' because we are talking about future rights; the change does not touch past rights. I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.

Nigel Waterson: I appreciate, as the Minister pointed out, that the new clause and the amendment are to do with deferred pensions, so we are dealing with a fairly narrow issue. However, it is important to look at that issue in the broader context, particularly the public policy context that the Minister touched on.
 We are talking about people in public service jobs, such as firefighters, police and others, who are used to a system where the norm is to retire at 60 or even earlier. The changes will take away something from them that they might otherwise expect to have. The Minister may present the changes as a tidying-up exercise—in the same way as the EU constitution, on a different level, has been presented—but that is clearly not the case if we put the changes in context. The briefing note is very up front and ''in yer face'' about this. It says that there is no reason to provide for a pension before what is the normal pension age for the public services generally. I will not be unique in having received several letters from constituents about the Government's plans for local government pensions, including those for policemen, firefighters and so on. 
 The proposals from the Deputy Prime Minister are to make the retirement age 65 for all by phasing out the ability to retire at 60 with 25 years service, to increase the earliest age at which benefits may be paid, other than on the grounds of ill health, from 50 to 55, 
 and to introduce measures to provide for flexible retirement. It has been said—I think this is what the Minister was saying—that whatever changes are made will not affect pension benefits already earned from past service. However, as I understand the new clause, that is precisely what is being done, because people will have to wait longer to take that deferred pension. 
 One should consider the issue in the context of what the Minister referred to as the policy aim. The briefing note says that rights accrued up to the coming into force of the new clause are payable from an age no later than age 60, but rights accrued from the coming into force of the new clause will be payable from age no later than 65. Therefore, any rights accrued up to the time that the new clause comes into effect will be protected, but from then on things will be different for pensioners who have deferred. 
 It is important to probe the Government on what their policy really is. They have clearly taken the view across the board that people should be working longer before drawing their pensions. There is a significant feeling, certainly among my constituents, that that is unfair because the goalposts are being moved, and the new clause is just one aspect of moving them. I appreciate that the broad policy issue is for a different Department—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and we would not want to cross such a redoubtable figure—but there is already a lot of aggravation from unions and individuals about changes to local government pension schemes. The new clause is just one aspect of that. 
 Since the Minister touched on the public policy view that people should work longer and be older before they draw their pensions, it is important that he sets out the thinking behind that. Is it simply a matter of saving money? Is it thought to be good for them? Does it tie in with a possible agenda for raising the retirement age to 70 or even higher? Those are all interesting issues that arise out of the provision, which, I accept, deals with the narrow question of the deferred pensioners.

Steve Webb: Again, I am trying to get my head round a new clause—this time it is new clause 33. I think the Minister implied that short service could mean 40 years. It means just short of being a current member of a scheme. In that context, short refers to any accrued pension rights where one has left the scheme before normal pension age. Will the Minister clarify whether we are talking in some cases about someone's practically complete pension rights—provided that they have left the scheme before normal pension age? I am not sure whether piddling is parliamentary language, but the amount of pension would not be negligible. We are not talking about someone's little bit of pension; we could be talking about someone's almost total pension.
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned ill health grounds. Schemes may have different provisions for early retirement because of ill health. How will those interact with new clause 33? If someone has an earlier normal pension age for early 
 retirement, will they still have to wait until they are 65, for example, before they draw the ill health pension? 
 I am also slightly hazy—perhaps because it is after lunch—about whether the provision affects accrued rights. The excerpts from the briefing note about existing and future rights that the hon. Member for Eastbourne quoted are in the context of exceptional schemes that have different rules for early leavers and for people who carry on until normal pension age. The note therefore implies that the excerpts he read out would not normally apply. 
 From the enactment of the legislation, will we end up saying to someone who has left a scheme, ''We have passed the Pensions Act so the money that you have built up and thought you would get at 60, you will actually get at 65''? Or are we saying, ''No, you thought that you would get it at 60, so you can have it at 60, but if you leave any scheme after the coming into force of the Act, then you will have to wait''? Will they receive the amount that had accrued up to the legislation's enactment? If one were to leave the scheme a year later, would one have to wait for the amount accrued up to enactment or just the amount accrued after enactment? 
 You can see my confusion, Mr. Griffiths. I am not sure which rule applies in which circumstances. If one has to carve up parts of pensions into parts that accrued before and after a date, and one has to draw one part at one age and another at another age, we will end up in the mire of complexity that so many of us wanted to avoid. 
 The other substantive issue is the Government's understandable drive to encourage everyone to work longer. The new clause would make it more difficult for people to draw pensions in their late 50s and early 60s. The Secretary of State borrowed what I always consider to be my phrase—perhaps I got it from someone else—about the cliff edge of retirement. If we are to regard retirement as a process rather than an event, does that process have to begin at 65? 
 If we want people to phase themselves out of the labour market much more slowly and less dramatically, why not think of a decade of retirement that might start at 60 and end at 70, for example, in which people could draw pensions that, if taken at 61, by definition would be more modest? They could combine it with part-time work throughout their 60s. Would that not be in keeping with the spirit of the Government's proposals? They would not suddenly stop working at 65. The new clause stops them from doing that, however. It says, ''You must work full-pelt until 65 because you cannot have your pension, then at 65 you get your hefty pension because you have had to wait, at which point you do not have to work at all.'' That does not seem to go with the grain of the Government's rhetoric about phased and staged retirement, and process not event. 
 One can understand that the Government want everyone to take their pensions later, but how consistent is that with the wider goal of this policy? This new clause has also been introduced very late in 
 the day, and it might have some quite serious practical implications. Does the Minister know how many people it will affect? If it involves policemen and firefighters, that would represent a lot of people, although I am confused about whether it covers ex-policemen who have not yet reached pension age. 
 Are we, to borrow the phrase used by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, in footballers and ballet dancers territory? Almost by definition, footballers will leave the employment of their sponsoring employer before normal pension age. Should not people who have a burst when they can do their job and then a long period when they cannot, be able to smooth their incomes much more, rather than having a huge amount of money at one period in their life, followed by a barren period, and then having—under the new clause—to wait even longer before they can get the deferred pay that is their pension? 
 The new clause raises many issues. It is disturbing that it has come as late in the proceedings as it has. We need much more discussion than we have had so far. I hope—I think that this is important—that the Minister will take us through the issue of accrued rights to the date that the Act comes into force and of people who leave schemes subsequent to that date. Will their whole pension be denied them until they are 65 or only the bit that has accrued? On all of those things, we need to have a much clearer account.

Malcolm Wicks: We have had a useful debate. In a way, there are two kinds of issues. The one that I will address second is the relevant one. The other is the broader context of working life and sensible pension age policy. I must not get too far into that wider debate, because there have been and will be other occasions for it. The Government's general position is that we need to create a society and an economy where people have opportunities to work longer than some are at present able to do. There is a range of issues about how we achieve that that are not relevant to the Bill.
 We think that the idea that many civil servants and public servants should get their occupational pension at the age of 60 is outmoded. One should look at the history books to see when it might have come in, but it was in a much earlier era when life expectancy was different from what it is in the 21st century. We think it reasonable to say that, in the future, the notion that one should work up to the age of 65 in the public services should not be regarded as extraordinary in a society where people would, at that stage, have a life expectancy of about 20 years. That will increase as the century progresses. That will have to be done on a phased basis, because it is a matter for discussion with different public services and it will be phased in with regard to different cohorts. 
 I hope that hon. Members will not think that that is an extraordinary notion. Indeed, given that many in the private sector are not able to draw their occupational pension until 65, there is an issue about public versus private if we are to maintain public confidence in our public services. 
 Although the hon. Member for Eastbourne says that we expect people to work longer, I do not think 
 that we are in a society and an economy where people will be working for more years than their parents or grandparents did. For perfectly good reasons, such as school-leaving age, further education and higher education, their entry into the labour market is altogether different from that experienced by their grandparents. Many people will not properly enter the labour market with their first major job until they are 20 years or a quarter of a century into their life. One has to be careful before jumping to the conclusion that people will be working longer. That is a subject for another debate, but it has been raised by the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Northavon and I thought that I should address it briefly. 
 On the specifics of the amendments, we are talking about a much narrower, albeit important, subject. We are talking about when someone works in the public services—we have referred to firefighting and crime fighting—but leaves before the usual retirement age, presumably to pursue another career. If people are sick, different issues are involved, but if they leave to get another job, does it make sense for us to say of future rights that will be accrued—not past rights—''No, you should receive your pension at 55'' or at whatever age applies to the scheme? It is much more sensible to say, ''No, you will get that part of your pension when you are 65.'' 
 The hon. Member for Northavon has properly raised the issue again with me. The rights of members are fully protected under current legislation. The amendment would not alter the level of protection in respect of raising the public service pension age; it will be in respect of future service only. The rights of a person who was a firefighter or a police officer earlier in his career will be protected. Obviously, we must be careful about making changes and thinking through the implications. The debate has been useful, but the provision is not that revolutionary and, in terms of future rights, it is a matter of common sense about how we have regard to our emerging demography in the 21st century and how we adjust public service pension rights to that new demography.

Steve Webb: I am not sure what I was doing that was slowing down the Minister. I want to know about the transition. The new clauses applies straight away to future service. Let me get my head around the matter: I could be aged 55, and anticipate working for a further five years and drawing a pension at 60. The coming into force of the Bill means that I cannot draw the pension in respect of those final five years at 60, but only at the age of 65. How does a person divide the service accrued to date, with the service accrued in those final five years in a final salary scheme, when those final five years are the time in which his salary could increase quite a lot and affect the service that he has earned in his entire life? In one sense, that is a technical question, but we all know that those last few years of service could add a heck of a lot to a person's pension rights. Under the Bill, a person could find, with very little notice, that he could not draw a big slug of his pension rights for a further five years. It is all very well saying that the matter relates to future service, but a fairly short-term future service might
 have a big impact on a person's pension. Are we giving people fair warning of such matters?

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the question, but as the matter has excited more interest on a Thursday afternoon than I had anticipated, it would be helpful if I write to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members about the provision and explain where we are generally going in terms of public service pension ages. I shall try to address the specifics of how it would affect individuals in different circumstances. The hon. Gentleman asked a perfectly proper question and that is how I wish to deal with it.

Steve Webb: I simply wish to advise you, Mr. Griffiths, that I want us to have a Division on the matter. I am not being churlish because I look forward to the Minister's explanation. However, until we receive it we are being asked to accept something about which the Committee has not received a full or adequate explanation. Such a provision could have a big impact on hundreds of thousands of constituents. We cannot nod it through in the expectation that a letter will satisfy us.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 544, in 
schedule 12, page 233, line 18, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'In section 132, the words from ''or the voluntary'' to third ''requirements''.'. 
 In section 181(1), the definition of ''voluntary contributions requirements''.
 No. 546, in 
schedule 12, page 233, line 18, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'Section 148(5)(ba) and (bb). 
 Section 149(1), (1A) and (1B). 
 In section 149(3)— 
 (a) paragraph (ba), and 
 (b) paragraph (d) and the word ''and'' immediately preceding it. 
 Section 149(8). 
 In section 151(1), paragraph (c) and the word ''and'' immediately preceding it. 
 In section 151(3)— 
 (a) paragraphs (ba) and (bb), and 
 (b) in paragraph (c) the words ''any of paragraphs (a) to (bb).'.
 No. 545, in 
schedule 12, page 233, line 21, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'In Schedule 9, paragraphs 5 and 7(2).'.
 No. 102, in 
schedule 12, page 233, leave out lines 23 and 24.
 No. 576, in 
schedule 12, page 233, line 33, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'In section 22(1)(b), the word ''or'' at the end of sub-paragraph (i). 
 In section 25(2), the words from ''but'' to the end. 
 Sections 26A to 26C.'.
 No. 570, in 
schedule 12, page 233, line 43, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'Section 31.'.
 No. 103, in 
schedule 12, page 233, line 53, column 2, at end insert— 
 'In section 71A(4), paragraphs (f) and (g).'
 No. 577, in 
schedule 12, page 234, line 16, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'Section 118(3).'. 
 —[Malcolm Wicks.]

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 403, in
schedule 12, page 234, line 27, after '21(3)''' insert 'and ''78, 79, 80(4)'''.
 This is a minor, technical amendment that relates to the dissolution of the Pensions Compensation Board. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 578, in 
schedule 12, page 234, line 47, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'Section 47(1), (2) and (4).'.
 No. 547, in 
schedule 12, page 234, line 47, in column 2 at end insert— 
 'Section 54.'.
 No. 548, in 
schedule 12, page 234, line 53, at end insert— 
 'The repeals in sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c.48) relate to those provisions as amended by section 54 of the of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 (c.19) to the extent that those amendments have been brought into force for the purpose of making regulations and rules.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 244 - Pre-consolidation amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: The clause allows the Secretary of State to modify provisions of the pensions legislation for the purposes of consolidation of that legislation; that is set out in subsection (1). The Green Paper made clear our commitment to consolidate the pensions legislation as soon as practicable. It is our intention that, after the Bill is enacted, the Law Commission should prepare a consolidation of the pensions legislation, consisting principally of the primary legislation mentioned in subsection (1). Where the draftsmen—or women—find provisions of that legislation that require amendment in order to assist the process of consolidation, we shall be able to give effect to those changes by order for that limited purpose.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 244 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 245 - Commencement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Webb: Subsection (1) states:
''Subject to subsections (2) to (4), the provisions of this Act come into force in accordance with''
 when the Secretary of State says so. I have looked into this only briefly, but it appears to me that the introduction of the pension protection fund is not covered in subsections (2) to (4), and that therefore the Secretary of State will have the power to decide when it will be introduced. 
 The word on the street is that that might not happen in April 2005 because the Government are so far behind that the work has hardly begun. That is not merely a debating point; it is an important and substantive one. My party voted for this Bill, and it wants pension protection to be introduced, so it would be regrettable if the Department's delays meant that it came into force late. My question on clause 245(1) is this: do the Government still intend that the Secretary of State will commence by order the part of the Bill relating to the PPF in April 2005, or is there any danger that that timetable might not be adhered to?

Nigel Waterson: I was not proposing to speak on this clause, but I am alarmed by the word on the hon. Gentleman's street, although it may be a rather different street from those that the rest of us are familiar with.

Malcolm Wicks: Quality Street.

Chris Pond: Acacia avenue.

Win Griffiths: ''Sesame Street'', probably.

Nigel Waterson: ''Sesame Street'', Quality Street; keep them coming.
 I had not heard that word on the street. However, it would not surprise members of my party because not only do we endorse the Government's description of this timetable as challenging, but we think it has become more so. That is why I have made our position clear; we must first get the PPF right. We are putting things into this legislation that will give the PPF structural problems that may prove to be extremely dangerous in its early stages; I am thinking of the question of the levy and how that is calculated, and the risk basis, and so on. 
 In an earlier debate, I made detailed proposals as to how the interim situation involving the 60,000 people—and any others who might be unfortunate enough to face the same problem as them—could still be addressed without rushing into ill judged legislation on a self-imposed political timetable. Ministers have made urbane arguments and somehow they have persuaded people. Even the BBC website is saying that there will be a guarantee of 100 per cent. of people's pensions, or 90 per cent. if they are still working. We are writing to the BBC to get it to correct that because it is simply untrue, as we all know.

Steve Webb: Given the hon. Gentleman's penchant for technology, may I suggest that he e-mails the BBC website rather than writes to it?

Nigel Waterson: My people will speak to their people and something will get sorted out by some method of communication, because people are in danger of being conned over this guarantee.
 The Government are still using the word ''guarantee.'' Things are happening at two different levels; there is a political level at which the Government are saying, ''We are producing this guarantee, and it will be a total safety net that solves everyone's problems,'' and then there is the reality as stated in the Bill. 
 If there is any suggestion that there will be a delay in implementing all of this by next spring, we should be the first to hear of it. However, given this Government's track record, we may be the last to hear. 
 The Minister should not feel any macho need to adhere to what may become an ever more difficult and less practical timetable. He should not be persuaded by the hon. Member for Northavon to do it by next spring, willy-nilly, because there are still some major problems to be addressed. I did not intend to speak on the clause, but I do so because I am so concerned by what the hon. Member for Northavon said. Because he is a Liberal Democrat spokesman, what he says must be true and based on hard fact and evidence. 
 I should be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.

Malcolm Wicks: I know that it is a beautiful sunny day, but the silly season seems to have come early. The hon. Member for Northavon is clearly at least in the courteous business of trying out his draft weekend press releases with the Committee. I can see it now in that new Conservative newspaper, The Express: ''Webb warns of delays to PPF.'' What a load of nonsense we have heard today from both the hon. Member for Northavon and the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I have never heard such rubbish in all my life, apart from in the earlier speeches they made.

Nigel Waterson: Is that a no, then?

Malcolm Wicks: The fact of the matter is that it would be wrong and, indeed, lacking in courtesy to say before the Bill has gone through Parliament—it has not gone to the upper House and we have not yet had Third Reading—that the protection fund and the regulator will definitely be up and running in April, 100 per cent., although that is our firm intention. We are moving ahead successfully in that direction. I am convinced that it will happen then, although to say that with 100 per cent. certainty as the Bill passes through the House would be a discourtesy. However, that is our firm intention.
 We know about all the pressures, including most of those in Parliament, although I never know what are the pressures from the Conservative party—it depends what draft employers' press release they are reading from that day. All the pressures from Committee members and other Members of the House have been about doing things as soon as possible to give people the proper protection and end the scandal. It is 
 irresponsible for anyone to start a hare running and say that things could be delayed until after April. 
 The hon. Member for Northavon talked about the word on the street. I do not want to be too broad on this matter, but as part of our social policy we are worried about the dangers facing young people on street corners—hence our emphasis on decent schooling, attacking truancy, drug protection and so on. Young people can hear silly, dangerous things that can get them into trouble on street corners. I urge the hon. Gentleman to find a decent street to walk down and have proper, responsible conversations. 
 The protection fund will be up and running in April 2005. It will be a major step forward in our social reforms for this country. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 245 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 246 - Extent

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 539, in
clause 246, page 162, line 46, at beginning insert 
 'Subject to the following provisions,'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 541.

Malcolm Wicks: In this part of our discussion we are dealing, in a rather technical way, with the implications for Scotland and Northern Ireland. I shall not spend too much time on these amendments, because early in our discussions we had some debate about the application of the provisions to the United Kingdom. We made it clear that the major features of the legislation—the PPF and the regulator—would apply UK-wide. These technical amendments bring that into effect. I am happy to answer any questions, but people might, for clarity, want to refer to some of our earlier debates.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 509, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 10, after '83' insert ', 84(1) and (3)'.
 No. 563, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 10, after '93' insert 
 ', 123(2)(a), (3), (5) and (6)'.
 No. 510, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 10, after '93' insert '135, 150'.
 No. 533, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 10, after '170', insert 
 ', [Deputy PPF Ombudsmen]' 
 .
 No. 511, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 10, leave out second 'and' and insert— 
 '( ) section 85 so far as that provision has effect in relation to functions of the Board conferred by any provision of, or made under, this Act which extends to Northern Ireland, and'.
 No. 398, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 11, at end insert '(other than paragraph 17A)'.
 No. 564, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 11, at end insert 
 ', and 
 ( ) Schedule 6 (other than paragraph 7),'.
 No. 540, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 15, leave out 'section 211(2)(b)' and insert 
 'sections [The Pensions Ombudsman and Deputy Pensions Ombudsmen] and 211(2)(b)'.
 No. 541, in 
clause 246, page 163, line 22, at end insert— 
 '( ) Section 80 (legal assistance scheme) does not extend to Scotland.'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Clause 246, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 247 - Northern Ireland

Amendments made: No. 565, in 
clause 247, page 163, line 27, at beginning insert '(1)'.
 No. 566, in 
clause 247, page 163, line 34, at end insert— 
 '(2) Where an Order in Council to which subsection (1) applies makes provision (''the NI provisions'') which corresponds to the GB transfer provisions, regulations may make provision to secure that any transfer of property, rights and liabilities by virtue of the NI provisions is recognised for the purposes of the law of England and Wales and the law of Scotland. 
 (3) In subsection (2) ''the GB transfer provisions'' means section 123(1), (2)(a), (3), (5) and (6) and Schedule 6(other than paragraph 7).'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
 Clause 247, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 248 - Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: We have reached that historic moment in our deliberations when we need to discuss the short title of the Bill. Hon. Members may feel that the full panoply of the Government's imagination is not best displayed by the conclusion we have come up with. We obviously had regard to the nature of the legislation and the precedents and conventions as to how it should be referred to in future. We have also had regard to the subject matter of the Bill, using our best arts of paraphrase and précis. Obviously, we have looked at our calendars and we have some idea of the appropriate—I hope I have got my Latin right—anno domini. Therefore, after much deliberation and full consultation we feel that we should have as a short title, not in regulation but on the face of the Bill, the Pensions Act 2004.

Nigel Waterson: I have some notes from the Library on the clause, and the Engineering Employers Federation also had some comments, but I thought, ''sod it.'' [Interruption.] We are delighted to have reached this historic moment, but it would not be right for me to finish this part of our deliberations without making the point that this 2004 Pensions Bill is a different animal—it is almost unrecognisable in some respects—from the one with which we started. It is still a work in progress, and I dare say that we will all get there in the end. Hopefully, if we retain our sense of humour, and if the Minister acquires one—[Hon. Members: ''Withdraw!'']—we will all enjoy the rest of the Committee stage.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 248 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Four o'clock till Tuesday 27 April at half-past Nine o'clock.